Alex Espinoza is a software developer in California with expertise on C/C++, C#, Java, Asp.Net, Php & Javascript. He is also knowledgeable of Linux, which used to be his passion of college years. He gave a strong response to my post titled Microsoft’s Huge Cloud Problem in his blog. Since it is our policy in Cloud Ave to give equal visibility to all sides of a topic, we are republishing his post here with his permission. Feel free to jump into the discussion. – Krish.
I just recently read an article from Krishnan Subramanian, which I believe is very interesting: Microsoft’s Huge Cloud Problem.
I agree with most of the article’s comments. They have to be taken with a grain of salt, since most of is speculation. Very smart speculation, but speculation none the less. But What I do disagree completely, is the following line:
“..cloud is an evolution from the web and .NET was never a platform of choice in the web…”
I agree that the cloud is an evolution of the web, but the article talks about choice, who is it referring to? Is it the open source community? Or is the enterprise community? or is it both?
Obviously as an Open Source advocate, .Net or even Mono would not be your web platform of choice. You usually go to either PHP (which is the leader in the Open Source community) Ruby or Python (just to name a few, I know there are a lot more).
But in the enterprise world, .Net is very much relevant, and in most of the cases it is the platform of choice. I know that this is a huge market and the competition is strong, but to completely dismiss Asp.Net as not a platform of choice is far from the truth.
Asp.Net and .Net are very much relevant right now, and it will stay that way for a long time. Whether Azure succeeds or not.
It is a mistake to think that everything will be in the cloud. What will prevail are hybrid environments. That is why I think Microsoft will not only survive this (even though is going to be a really difficult climb), but it will remain relevant.
Google’s view of *EVERYTHING* in the Cloud is not very down to earth (hence the name, everything in the clouds). And in my opinion, it will never get there. A lot of things are going to be done in the cloud, and probably the majority, but not all. We are creatures of choices, and we will keep our options open.
Now with the open source movement, Microsoft has done a lot. And I actually think we should thank Miguel de Icaza and his team for this. He might be called a traitor by some, but I think he is the biggest Trojan Horse of all. He has been pushing Microsoft to open source (with the help of so many).
But let’s think about Mono for a minute. Microsoft already released the source code for .Net in a very closed license, which I see as a glass box (look but don’t touch). It is getting there, to that openness that the article is talking about. They know they have to do it. But they don’t know how.
Now, Mono is a very good example. They have been reproducing the signatures and interfaces to use .Net on Linux and it works like a charm. Also they have been adding their own mix.
Microsoft will end up releasing .Net as an Open Source project, it will not be soon though. They already have their own license for that. With what Mono has done, when Microsoft plans to release, the integration with Mono will make it easier to hit the market.
The article is right about one important thing, in order to compete in the clouds, they have to kill Windows as an Desktop OS. But I think it will prevail as Windows Azure. That is why the word “Windows” appears in there.
Just one more thing before I close this rant. I think the mistake that Netscape did with Mozilla, is a learning experience that can be applied anywhere. When Netscape decided to build their browser from Scratch instead of fixing their bloated browser at the time. They lost too much time, and they lost the browser wars. They should have fixed their browser, not start a new one, which ended up with the same problems. It eventually got fixed when the community did the right thing and fixed it with Firefox, but they didn’t not start from scratch, they fixed Mozilla.
Microsoft is the browser and we (the community) are Netscape. Are we going to kill Microsoft so that Apple or Google takes its place? And then end up with the same problems all over?
I wouldn’t really want Apple in Microsoft’s shoes. I can see what they can do with their App Store. They have so much to learn. It would be like going back to the 90’s. We already went this route with Microsoft so many times, and now, Microsoft is learning.
How about Google? I wouldn’t want Google either. They are still too young, and we haven’t seen their evil yet, which scares me a lot. They not only have a lot of power in the internet, they hold most of our data, and they want *ALL* of it. Everybody has an evil side, and Google is not any different. We just haven’t seen it yet.
Microsoft is a known evil, let’s fix it. Why change it for a new one, when this evil has already been changed so much, and it is learning to live with the community?
Originally posted at Neonlabs
Interesting FUD argument about one small point. The relevant comment in the original article was that microsoft is a closed source, desktop focused software company in a computing world moving in a different direction. This is like being the best buggy whip maker when the horseless carriage was introduced. Buggy whip makers were safe with their knowledge that the horseless thing would never catch on. History shows us how that worked out.
The argument here is not about techincal details. It is about business and as markets change your company either changes or dies. Google is a young company with no historical ties to the way we always used to do it. Microsoft is a large ingrained and inbred corporation selling what they believe to be the best buggy whip available. Except that their last buggy whip was a piece of crap.
I fail to see the FUD in my comments. I really do.
My whole point is, Microsoft is now moving to the same direction the market is going, and yes they might be the best buggy whip makers, but now they are starting to build horseless carriages, even thought is outside of their competencies. They are learning and they are learning fast. They adapted. Microsoft will not go away. And this is not FUD, it is a reality.
I don’t know if Azure will be a success or not, and I don’t really know if they even will still the leaders in the following years, but the will stay relevant. And that is my whole point. They have a huge problem, but there are several point where they are changing.
@mb01915,
You nailed it. If the success and power in the past era is an indication of success in the future, why didn’t IBM succeed in desktop market? Why am I NOT using a Silicon Graphics machine for my number crunching and video processing needs? As Vanessa Alvarez pointed out in Twitter, why is Nortel messed up? Clearly, we cannot expect Microsoft to be a huge player in the cloud market just because they did big in the desktop era. At best, they will be one of the many players fighting hard to get customers. At worst, they will be “once upon a time, we were a legend” kinda company.
Plus, their open source credentials are really not substantial. In my opinion, even Google has done more to the open source than Microsoft. Their my way or highway attitude in Opensource will not take them very far.
Krish & mb01915,
You are right, the success and power in the past era is not an indication of success in the future. That doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t still be relevant.
First of all the desktop is loosing importance thanks to cloud computing. So definitely Microsoft will not continue to be a success in the desktop. But it will remain relevant in cloud computing for sure.
My choice for Cloud Computing is Amazon EC2, because I have more power. But I do take Azure into consideration. They will stay relevant.
My point is, don’t dismiss Microsoft just yet.
And Krish, Microsoft’s Open Source credentials doesn’t matter that much. What matters right now, is that they at least have them. Something that a lot people never thought could happen. They will work on improve them, and stay relevant.
Alex, Sure. I agree. In my post, I didn’t dismiss Microsoft at all. I just pointed out that it is a tough task for them to be successful like the previous era without changing their tactics considerably. I think we are in agreement here.
Regd Open Source, I agree with you. I would love to have them as a part of open ecosystem. My view against them is more nuanced than outright dismissal of them by the purists of open source. At the same time, I am also upset with the open source apologists who want to look at Microsoft for getting legitimacy for open source. One of these days, I will do a post elucidating these views of mine.
With Sam Ramji gone from Microsoft, it will be interesting to see how they go along from now on.
Alex – I am a non techie person in a small business and I don’t see mircrosoft being relevant to me on any level. There are cheaper and better options for anything that comes from microsoft. I don’t care if they live or die. Microsoft has nothing I want or need. Their only real sucessful product is a gaming system. Their phones and phone software is a mess. Their zune thing is a laughing stock. Their CEO derides everything that comes out of Apple and then implements cheap failure ridden imitation products. Their move to the cloud with Sidekick has been a poster child for mismanagement. They hold on to their desktop rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
You have your opinion. I have mine. If I were you, I would not hold on to my microsoft stock much longer. Every 20 microsoft shares will get you 1 Google share.
@Krish,
Loosing Sam Ramji was a huge disappointment. Because the kind of movements he was pushing needs a leader. This is going to delay any successful move towards being truly open source.
@mb01915,
I understand. Microsoft is not for everybody, as Open Source is also not for everybody. This is not really about keeping one or the other but both.
And regarding the sidekick fiasco. That wasn’t a cloud-move for Microsoft. The media wanted to see it like that, but what Microsoft wanted from Danger was not their cloud infrastructure or services, they wanted the team. So that they could use their expertise in the “Pink” project.
It is sad because their “Pink” project is a project management failure. And with the Sidekick thing, they just lost any credibility in the Phone Market. And yes I do agree with you, their Phone and Zune sucks. That is because their is no muscle behind those so-called strategies.
“You have your opinion. I have mine. If I were you, I would not hold on to my microsoft stock much longer. Every 20 microsoft shares will get you 1 Google share.”
Opinions are good. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss about my opinions and sharing your. I don’t have any stock in Microsoft. So I don’t get anything if they either fail or succeed. I am actually using everything I can. I use Amazon EC2 with Linux as platform. I use mono as programming framework. I use ExtJs as Frontend framework, I have some services in Google Apps Engine. And I will get into Azure once it opens. The best thing of everything in tech is options. That is why I don’t Microsoft to go. If they go, I loose one option, and important one.
My point (and whole opinion) is do not dismiss Microsoft. They might not be the best company ever, but they do know how to compete and stay relevant.
Time will tell. Let’s see what happens. It is going to be exciting to see real competition for once in so many years.